Page: 207
issue. Francine Jacques (Gaudette) did discuss Cotrel rods with Pierre Blais and had at least one
other conversation with him but nothing of great consequence. 691 Janice Hopkins was aware of
Pierre Blais but never had an occasion to discuss Proplast with him.692 One person who did speak
with Pierre Blais was Nirmala Chopra. She testified that the evaluators consulted him often
regarding different types of material. She said that the 1981 to 1982 period was when they began
to hear about Proplast. They were not sure “what it was doing… we needed to study it more.”693
It is evident that Nirmala Chopra did review Proplast and other materials with Pierre Blais. Her
understanding was that the evaluators also spoke with him. This, it would seem, is not accurate.
She directed Nancy Shadeed to speak to Pierre Blais 694but, from the evidence of Nancy
Shadeed, she did not. By the time Richard Lawuyi conducted his review, Nirmala Chopra was no
longer with the Medical Devices Bureau.
[628] What do I take from this? It may be that the Crown believes that the evidence of Pierre
Blais should be disregarded. I do not understand why it was thought necessary to prepare, what
on its face seems to be, the approval of the paper: “Frangible, Degradable and Dispersible
Implant Materials” by copying what was a proper approval of another paper. However, I am not
prepared to allow that fact to jettison all that was offered by Pierre Blais. As I have said, he was,
for a significant period of time, considered to be a valued employee. On the other hand, the
Plaintiff believes that Pierre Blais is the light which guides the circumstances as she sees them.
That is to say that the danger presented by Proplast was clear from the beginning, that the
officials of the Crown knew this, or should have recognized it and the failure to act was
demonstrative of their collective negligence. I do not accept this either. It is more than forty
years since Pierre Blais went to work for the Medical Devices Bureau and that long since he
attended the Gordon Conference, which is where the evidence as to his personal experience with
Proplast began. Memory is uncertain. It can mislead us as to the substance and nature of our
involvement in events long passed. In the absence of any specific confirmation I do not accept
that Pierre Blais pushed for the prohibition of Proplast. To the contrary, he accepted the changes
to the Medical Devices Regulations as typical of the evolution of this sort of regulatory tool and
the outcome of the request for change, being the addition of implants that would remain in the
body for 30 days as subject to Part V of the Medical Devices Regulations, as providing a level of
protection for the public. It was a form of “enhanced regulatory control”: a new classification
criterion for devices subject to Part V requirements (see para. [130] above). At the material time,
as opposed to when he appeared at the trial, Pierre Blais agreed that the chapter of the Rubin text,
that dealt with Proplast, should remain in that publication because it was possible that Charles
Homsy was right, that Proplast could be useful and of assistance to patients. I find that Pierre
Blais was not central, as he believes himself to have been, to whatever debate took place inside
the Health Protection Branch. For the most part, those who testified, and were directly involved,
never discussed Proplast with him. It may be that Nirmala Chopra and Pierre Blais talked about
Proplast but there is little that suggests these conversations went further. It should not be
forgotten that she left after Nancy Shadeed found the submissions made with respect to Propast
691 Transcript of Francine Jacques (June 17, 2019) at p. 82-83, 95
692 Transcript of Janice Hopkins (June 10, 2019) at p. 105
693 Transcript of Nirmala Chopra (April 11, 2019) at p. 25-26 and (April 23, 2019) at p. 28
694 Transcript of Nirmala Chopra (April 24, 2019) at pp.76 and 100